Template:User:Carnildo/Nospam Archives: The beginning through April 22, 2005 April 22, 2005 to August 3, 2005 August 3, 2005 to November 4, 2005

You have been named as one of the subjects of an RfC at [1] --Silverback 06:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh. After deleting so many unsourced images, I needed something to lighten things up. --Carnildo 07:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be confused once again. If you have a chance, can you correct what I have gotten wrong at Template talk:Album infobox 2?

I noticed you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red screen of death. Could you come and comment at Talk:Blue screen of death#Foo Screen of Death merge? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for intervening in this dispute. As you requested, I have posted a detailed explanation for my position on the guideline's talk page. Monicasdude 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it increased by 10% by this edit summary. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo. Thank you for pointing out the image ststus problems on the FAC for shoe polish. I think I have addressed them, but I'm not very expert when it comes to image copyright, so please feel free to advise. I would very much like to resolve any image copyright issues. Proto t c

Further to this, I've uploaded a free to use image, replacing the dubious image in question. I hope this satiisfies your issues with the article. If it does, please reconsider your vote If it doesn't, please let me know why. Proto t c 10:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingoolemo/Threads/05/11/09a

Thanks for the "tough love". 'lol' I fixed the problem the way User:Sherool suggested on my talk page. --Liberlogos 06:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What I've been able to determine about mug shots: At any level of government (local, state, fed) [2] they are public records that are publicly accessible and copiable [3] if they have been released. --Fallout boy 02:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after further research I have found that there is a bit of controversey regarding their distribution and what copiable constitutes [4], so for the time being I have changed the template until I can determine what the exact regulations.--Fallout boy 10:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have solved the problems you noted. Please let me know if there is anything else. Pentawing 04:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

.. which is far better and more detailed than mine (which in all honesty was rather a quick and dirty hack). User:Sj has invited me to look into Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality spot check and I think you might be interested too. Regards, Kosebamse 11:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to know your way through "fair use" thickets, I thought you might be interested and/or knowledgeable to help along at User:Lupo/Public domain... Lupo 10:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you sign your comment on AFD for the article "The Great Calamity". --Philip Baird Shearer 09:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review the images at this Dawson Creek article. I plan to put it up as a FAC soon and would like to avoid any complications. I am specifically concerned with Image:Dawson Creek 1996.jpg. It is an air photo taken 10 years ago by the province. I use them in my mapping software at work but got this copy is from an online GIS application at a provincial ministry website. At my work we bought the licensing rights to use the the photos (about 100 photos) which we manipulate with other data. We give print-outs of these images out for free but it is data we are not allowed to give out. They are georeferenced to the 1:20,000 BCGS map grid. Of course, there is no data attached to this image posted on Wikipedia (it is simply a cut&pasted image of a section of two map sheets). If you know what the appropriate tag is, if it is indeed permitted, please let me know. Also, let me know what the appropriate tag is for Image:DawsonCreek logo.png, a version of the city's logo (other versions have slogans or other wording). And the flag was emailed to me from city hall after emailing them a request to use it on Wikipedia. Thank you in advance for any help you can provide. --maclean25 04:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does it matter that it is a Canadian flag and logo? --maclean25

heya ;] I was curious about your copyvio tagging of Kindred (poem) I was wondering where it's copied from? --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 03:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it to be from Ruth Bidgood's poetry book Kindred. It seems likely: Kindred (poem) states the poem was written in 1986 by Ruth Bidgood, and she had a poetry book by that title published in 1986. --Carnildo 19:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it ;] Added 'from Ruth Bidgood's poetry book Kindred' to the copyvio tag, thanks! ;] --VileRage ^{(Reply|C|Spam Me!*)} 20:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you cast a vote on the FA nomination for Hollaback Girl, and you don't seem to have been notified on your Talk page that User:Raul654 has cleared and restarted the nomination. If you want to recast your vote, you should do so at the article's new FA page. --keepsleeping say what 04:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. As I wrote, I was looking forward to feedback from the community, and I would like to let you know that you should please feel free to leave any further feedback for me you may have for me in the future at my Talk page. Thanks again. Jkelly 08:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that someone under your name commented "Where do I indicate "25% of all page loads fail"?" That, I suppose, would be one of the "other symptoms". Do you think it's necessary? By the way, what do you think of the script? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 23:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that something along the lines of "some page loads may fail" would be useful. Right now, it's possible to indicate that editing the encyclopedia may fail, but not to indicate that simply reading pages may sometimes fail. Also, a symptom of "images not loading" would be useful in the event that the problems with the image server return. --Carnildo 08:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion duly noted and probably will be added. :) — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 21:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that in the context one or fewer (existing or potential) articles, "potential article" really needs to be defined/qualified/etc as it makes the deletion a matter to be subjectively determined by the next observer. I attempted to exercise the {{db-a9}} criterion but got reverted by a certain incorrigible inclusionist whom I don't feel the need to identify.

I noticed that this loop-hole was added by Eugene van der Pijll [5] who was concerned about preserving Zevenhuizen [6] which seems reasonable. I also noticed that "Zevenhuizen" deals with individual towns, which I would assume would be best disambiguated as "{TOWN}{, LARGERPOLITICALUNIT}{, ETC}" rather than parenthetically, so maybe it would be reasonable to restrict A9 to dab pages whose links use parentheses, due to the differences in how the topics are referenced in common parlance. (?) — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take notice that I am filing a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. - Ted Wilkes 23:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take notice as to how little I care. --Carnildo 00:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few band articles go by that don't even assert existance, much less any sort of notability.

True. Chalk it up to selective memory: the ones that claim to be the greatest bands in the whole wide world tend to stick in my mind. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me as I may ramble. I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics and I have a couple of comments regarding the reverts that you made. Firstly, I apologize for causing you so much trouble today. The suggestion to amend the stub templates was around since the project inception and I had just recently began to follow-through on that suggestion, with only a couple done. I had only done a couple because I was not sure how the changes would be received and I would have changed them back if there were problems. Also, please do not think badly of User:216.144.203.22, this user thought that it would be helpful to do some grunt work. I, of course, would have preferred to discuss the changes than see anybody work for nothing, but I did not know beforehand who, if anybody, might object to the changes. Again, sorry for the trouble. --Robert Harrison^{talk contrib} 23:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the idea behind linking the stub templates to the WikiProject. The problem with that sort of change is that it implies a sort of "ownership" of the articles by a particular WikiProject, and that by editing an article, someone is helping a specific project, rather than helping Wikipedia as a whole. Also, some of the more detailed stub types could legitimately link to many projects: a hypothetical stub tag for New Jersey state highways could link to WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject Highways, and WikiProject Transportation. --Carnildo 19:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes whenever you have time? We are having a bit of an argument on the fair use of images on this list and I think we could benefit from a third opinion on this issue. Thanks a lot! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, I was wondering if you could have a look at The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask article and inform me if the images contain the proper copyright rationale? The rationale provided is presented in the same form as the images in the Super Mario 64 article. Thanks. —Hollow Wilerding 22:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to be a parody of User:Puppetmaster's blanket statement that "everybody" thinks that month first is superior. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For those not in the know on that particular edit war, it looks like a gratuitous attack on Americans. --Carnildo 09:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Carnildo, but I had to restore "license" to the template, per my comments on the talk page. No offense intended! BDAbramson T 19:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carnildo. I saw this at the time that you did it. I was hoping to have a pale background colour on my user page, without altering existing images, etc., so I looked at the coding to see what you had done, but it was too complicated.

If ever you're in a pale yellow mood, please feel free to visit my page!

I do realize that it might be complicated, though (I see you don't have background colour on your own user page), as in the case of Jimbo, there was already background colouring, so you presumanly just had to change one number to another in a couple of places, rather than inserting a whole pile of new stuff. So if this is something that would take you more than a minute, I'll fully understand if you just ignore this message. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 22:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(A few minutes later) SlimVirgin saw my message and very kindly changed the colour for me, so you don't need to bother. Thanks anyway! AnnH ^(talk) 23:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking of putting this article up for FAC down the road. However, I need your opinion concerning the images. Thanks. Pentawing 06:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd look into finding a replacement for Image:ProvidenceRI flag.png, since the Flags of the World licensing terms aren't really compatible with Wikipedia. Other than that, the images look good. --Carnildo 07:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to obtain a free copy of the city's flag, given that I am not much of an artist nor am I sure that the Providence website would provide one. If you know of some other means of obtaining such an image, please tell me. Pentawing 20:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One option would be to grab an image off the Providence website, and use it under "fair use": it's a pretty clear-cut case, and doesn't have the explicit "no commercial or political use" restrictions of the FotW image. Alternately, if the current version of the flag is old enough (pre-1977), the official version of the flag is probably in the public domain. Also, if the city seal is old enough, it's not copyrighted, and you could make a version of the flag by putting the seal in the middle of a rectangle and coloring it. --Carnildo 01:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your queries you posted at FAC except for your third point which I cannot address myself. I hope you can now consider a Support vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/De Lorean DMC-12, thanks. — Wackymacs 10:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please relook at Jesus to see if you want to support it for featured article status. Thanks. Scifiintel 18:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He must have found a photograph! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You voted delete. See Saint Thomas Christians. Clinkophonist 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What was the Realmedia file of, that was removed from the Psychedelic Music Article? I'm just curious. Michael 22:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a RealMedia audio stream. No idea what it was, since I don't have RealPlayer on my computer. --Carnildo 00:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might like to know I incorporated your 100 article study into my own subpage on the number of articles in wikipedia: User:R. fiend/How many articles does Wikipedia really have?. I had to recategorize many from your synopsis at the bottom to fit in to my classification. Other than the fact that we seem to classify stubs differently, your results seem to fit in reasonably well with my larger study. Do check it out. If you notice any problems let me know. Thanks. -R. fiend 19:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Most likely, the reason for the different results in "substubs" and "charts" is that I grouped the two together. The difference in number of stubs is that I would classify anything up to three paragraphs as a stub. --Carnildo 07:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the page nominating the Fred Phelps article for FA, you objected on the grounds of a "bad image." Now that that image has been removed from the page, might you re-consider your vote?Mistergrind 00:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You recently commented at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Proposal_to_modify_WP:NOT_an_image_gallery. In a related development, another, in my mind, valuable Image gallery is up for deletion (AfD. Please comment as you see fit. Dsmdgold 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your bot has tagged Image:Bjorn.o.nelson.jpg, a PD image as a no-source image. If there is no source, that is, the uploader uploads it from his collection, how will there be a source information unless he prefers to enter it? I guess the bot should catch only those no source images where no copyright info is provided. Thought you may want to look into this. btw, I have not uploaded the image, so I do not know about the source. Also, while you may notify the original uploader, what happens if he doesn't log on to Wikipedia for a week or if he has left the project? These questions are more out of curiosity. Pl. reply on my talkpage. --Gurubrahma 11:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My bot does not tag images. The only thing it does is remove images that are already tagged from articles.

In the more general case, this was discussed in great detail when speedy-deleting unsourced images was first allowed. The conclusions were:

• Unsourced images represent a liability to Wikipedia. Without knowing where the image came from and who created it, there is no way to tell a public-domain image from a copyright violation. Consequently, all unsourced images need to be deleted.
• Many images are improperly tagged, particularly those tagged with {{PD}} or {{GFDL}}. Many people don't understand copyright law, and think that any image is public-domain just because it's on a webpage somewhere. Without knowing the source, it's impossible to check this.
• The uploader should have provided source information when he first uploaded the image. If he's gone on a long vacation or has left the project, that's just too bad.
• If someone uploads an image that they created, they should say so, and should use a copyright tag such as {{PD-self}} or {{GFDL-self}}.

In the specific case of Image:Bjorn.o.nelson.jpg, it was uploaded by User:Bronks with a tag of {{PD}}, and no other information. User:Petaholmes tagged it as unsourced two weeks later. Based on the dither pattern and aliasing effects in the image, I'd judge that the image is a scan from a magazine or newspaper, probably from the mid to late 1980s. In that case the image is still copyrighted, and will be for the next 70 years or so.

--Carnildo 21:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild#User_talk:Jimbo_Wales--Striver 17:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see what vandalism I reinstated by rolling back the "buzz lightyear" goofiness in Longest word in English. - DavidWBrooks 20:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

^_^

--J7 08:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have left notes by your oppose. Could you please see to them? Thanks a lot, Spawn Man 22:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's called human error. :) I pressed the "rollback" button by mistake. Please see [7]. Thanks. --Durin 01:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i hope u don't mind me contacting u like this. maybe i'm misinterpreting the situation, or maybe i'm just a bit stupid, but i don't think the argument to remove is coming across clearly. i'd genuinely like to understand why you want them removed. if you have time, could you add more detail? Veej 14:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a particular user known by Mb1000 who is attempting to add three images to the almost-qualifies-for-a-stub-tag-article Square One Shopping Centre. He is insulting the numerous Wikipedians—including myself—who are trying our best to resolve this issue; he does not want to compromise in any possible way whatsoever. Someone who knows a great deal of Wikipedia:Images, which is you, really needs to stop his actions, which is why I have left you this message. Please attempt to fix the situation. It would be muchly appreciated. Thank you. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carnildo, it's me Mb1000. User:Madchester, along with Hollow Wilerding and User:Skeezix1000 have launched this war of sorts against a particular photograph on the Square One Shopping Centre page. This has been going on for a while. The above three users claim that my version of the article with the third image included is a violation of the Wikipedia:Images policy. I believe that this is outrageous. The image does no such thing. Now in an effort to have the photograph removed they are trying to have a certain paragraph of they article removed so that the photograph would have to be also removed. I took this before the AMA and this was the neutral third party opinion of User:Gator1 from the AMA:

"It is my unbiased opinion that Mb1000's version of the page at [8] is superior. I examined the policy cited by Madchester and believe that neither version of the page violates this policy. Madchester was concerned that the pictures clutter the text, but Mb1000's latest version seems to do no such thing. In fact, in my opinion, the gallery version of the page seems rather awkward.

"While there are a large number of pictures for such a short article, Mb1000's placement of them as of December 16, 2005 at 03:50 is not, in my opinion, in violation of policy and is more pleasing to the eye.

"Thus, the only really relevant criteria to make my determiantion was asthetics. I understand that Madchester beleives that his/her version is superior, but, as a third party neutral, I was asked to give my neutral opinion as an uninvolved third-party. In my opinion, Mb1000's version is more asthetically pleasing than the gallery compromise that Madchester has put forth."

Madchester has completely disregarded the AMA opinion.

Also, I would like to point out that I have not been rude nor insulting to anyone. I simply cited the Don't be a d*** policy.

Anyways, thanks for listening. --Mb1000 21:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly expect that Carnildo is going to reply, then we'll be here for about fifty years. I just realized this in relation to one of my comments posted above — request. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any specific reason why you called the Autobiography guideline a "policy" of which one can be "in violation"? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2005-12-20 21:23

Hmm I saw this Slashdot story too, sort of amused me though. Any particular reason why you submitted it, have you got a hatred against Jimbo or soemthing? — Wackymacs 21:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was too good a laugh not to submit. And my original submission described it as "against Wikipedia's guideline" -- Zonk must have decided that "in violation of Wikipedia's policy" sounded better. --Carnildo 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Slashdot editor, when the story isn't controversial enough, make stuff up!.. —Locke Cole 02:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi is orpah bot also going to orphan images tagged with {{nolicence}}, this category of images is growing and just is just as troublesome as {{nosource}}.--nixie 06:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, once I finish with {{nosource}}. --Carnildo 08:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just wondering why you removed the images from three stubs: Buffy, Star Wars and Star Trek. I thought screencaps were allowed. For example, the Buffy screencap I took myself, so surely under 'free use' it can be used. Thanks. --Cooksey 00:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't allowed. A screencap is a portion of a non-licensed copyrighted work, so it can only be used under "fair use", and Wikipedia's "fair use" policy does not permit such images to be used in templates. --Carnildo 00:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carnildo, could you please comment on the use of Image:Turning stone oneida casino.jpg in the article Economy of the Iroquois on its FAC? I'm unsure if the image can be used and would appreciate your opinion on the matter. Thanks alot! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image at List of One-day International records, so hopefully you'll reconsider your vote. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot made a formatting mistake when removing an unsource image from Light's Vision (see diff). Does it do this regularly, or is it just a random fault?--cj | talk 07:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed the bug. The bot would have only made that sort of mistake when there are two images one right after the other without anything between them -- most of the time, two images in a row will have a space between them, and the bug won't be triggered. --Carnildo 08:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anyone's asked this already (it seems to me that somebody might have), but does OrphanBot automatically notify the original uploaders of files that it identifies? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't notify uploaders. All OrphanBot does is remove images that have already been tagged from articles, and it doesn't do it in a particularly efficient manner, either: it simply goes through the category in alphabetical order, so someone who's uploaded 50 unsourced images would get 50 notices on their talk page -- or more, if the user tagging the image also notified the uploader. --Carnildo 23:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well how difficult would it be to figure out a way to notify users if something they've uploaded is up for deletion? It seems like a useful thing to do. (And anybody that uploaded 50 entirely unsourced images, probably deserves that on their talk page.)-Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an error here. See: [9], [10], etc - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found the problem: an absolutely idiotic typo on my part. If you see the bot malfunctioning again, post on its talk page to get it to stop running immediately. --Carnildo 06:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with your bot. I cannot see the diffs to check what the bot did. My internet explorer crashes as soon as I click on the diffs (even the ones above). Any ideas why? (I can check any other diffs I want). Renata3 06:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I figured. The page size was like 700kb. Renata3 06:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an unfortunate side-effect of adding the phrase "<!-- Unsourced image removed: --> before each and every letter of an article. --Carnildo 06:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some safeguards to the bot. It will now stop running if it thinks it's making a mistake: replacing an image with a caption of more than 400 bytes, replacing an image with a caption of less than 0 bytes, or replacing an image more than two times on a single page. --Carnildo 07:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not protect pages you are involved in. Next time, put a request up at RfP. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new comment section on Wikipedia talk:Fair use regarding your recent revert on WP:FUC that you might be interested in commenting on. That should satisfy my guideline of not overriding another admin's decision without consensus as well as answering what that sentence's intended meaning is. --Syrthiss 15:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit: [11].

The image tag wasn't on a line by itself. By changing that to <!-- Unsourced image removed: Image... -->, it broke the formatting. You should change OrphanBot to add a newline as necessary, for example if you are using a regular expression, replace "[[Image:(.*?)]]\n?" with "<!-- Unsourced image removed: $1 -->\n" --Quarl 08:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The problem with simply adding a newline is that it will break things in cases like the "Pokemon currency symbol", where an image was used within a line of text. I'm going to try modifying the regex to also match any non-newline whitespace after the image link and see if that fixes the problems. --Carnildo 10:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe use the above heuristic only when the image is at the start of the line? Well, I'm sure you know the various cases much better than I do :) —Quarl ^(talk) 20:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You flagged this picture copright unknown. It uploaded it, my best friend took it, he gave me his permission to upload it (infact, ordered me to). I don't know how to do what needs to be done to indicate that, but as far as I know, that makes it totally legit. Cornell Rockey 15:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo i see that your bot removed this image Image:Identified Victims.jpg from Srebrenica massacre article because of lack of copyright ingformation. The photographer is Tarik Saramah. I know this photographer personally and he allows the use of his images for such purposes (fair use) especially since they are such a small quality (14K) like this. Let me know if this is sufficient information for you. Thanks --Dado 17:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SaddamBaghdadwalkabout.jpg: the justifications given there look pretty solid to me; I'm not sure exactly what your bot is looking for, so I'm not sure what additional it might want. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking for the tags {{nosource}}, {{unknown}}, or equivalent. It doesn't care about any of the other tags, or any other text on the page. --Carnildo 04:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think that particular image has problems? And if so, precisely what? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I see is that it's tagged with the {{no license}} and {{tv-screenshot}} templates. It could use a bit more detail on the source (what the broadcast was, when it was made, and so forth), but mostly it's fine. --Carnildo 04:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider leaving a message at the uploader's user talk page after OrphanBot has tagged an image as unsourced, since she/he's the person who know best about where the image comes from. Meanwhile, I'm interested to know if the tagged images are listed simultaneously to images and media for deletion? Thanks. — Instantnood 09:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]